You are here

Up with cold logic, or down with the ship?

Italian divers are still pulling up dead bodies from inside the capsized Costa Concordia; there may be 20 more bodies to be found with 12 confirmed drownings already. The riveting and disgusting accounts of Capt. Francesco’s actions during the catastrophe have been headlined in the news for several days. He lied about staying on the doomed vessel when he had already fled. Coast Guard Capt. Gregorio De Falco angrily demanded he go back on board to help remaining passengers — he refused. His defense was that “The ship was tipping, and it was dark” and, “the other lifeboat is stopped.” The whole tragedy happened because he made the risky move to deviate from his assigned course to give his chief waiter a close look at his home island of Giglio.

He has not been the only captain to “abandon ship” before his passengers were all off; The Daily Herald (Jan. 20) mentioned others who have ensured their own personal safety (and infamy): Capt. Yiannis Avranas left the luxury liner Oceanos before all were off in 1991, while the same thing happened with the Yarmouth Castle off the Bahamas in 1965. They seem to be exceptions, however, with many more accounts of captains displaying heroic courage until the last passenger was safely off their vessels.

How opposite was Francesco’s cowardice at sea from Capt. Sully’s courage in being the last man off U.S. Airways Flight 1549 as it was sinking in the Hudson River. If someone had a “right” to be selfish it could have been him. Sully testified to the U.S. Congress of how recent airline industry cuts had chopped his pay 40 percent and he had lost his pension entirely after 30 years of service. His testimony reminded folks that present day pilot’s salaries have been cut so much that the airline industry can no longer attract the most qualified pilot candidates; Capt. Sully remains a public advocate for raising minimum qualifications for pilots and cutting back on the number of flight hours required for a single day.

Capt. Sully’s legacy is that of a hero, Capt. Francesco’s legacy will be that of a real schmuck. My question is — to what, exactly, do we attribute that social approval/disapproval philosophically? Sea and air captains have years of rigorous and highly intensive training. In a strictly utilitarian sense, wouldn’t it be more of a value to society for a captain to preserve his own life along with those valuable skills even if it means leaving a few “commoners” to fend for themselves? Suppose it had not been Capt. Francesco’s fault but rather simply an unavoidable accident; wouldn’t it make sense for him to save his own skin instead of sacrificing himself to save the remaining passengers, many of whom were old or disabled?

In the naturalistic worldview inculcated in our secular universities, wouldn’t such self-preservation be consistent with the “fittest survive” concept of Darwinism — and thus impervious to moral censure? Can we really condemn someone for not overriding their natural instinct for survival? I hope y’all realize I am playing Devil’s advocate here, but it is to make a point. I sometimes think that we as a society have lost the cognizance of such moral dilemmas, and our gut-level moral approval or disapproval engendered by them, as being rooted in a Christian world view that is surely but slowly being replaced.

In a naturalistic worldview the concept of an Almighty God coming to earth is simply untenable, and if it can even be considered at all, it would look nothing like what is depicted in the Bible. Surely, such a powerful being would immediately turn a few skyscrapers upside down or level a few mountains to demonstrate his power. Such a being would have world political leaders bowing in obeisance at his feet and would immediately annihilate anyone who stood in the way. The center of attention would be on the economic, military, and political spheres of power coming under that Being’s control. The weak and disadvantaged of society would not be a priority.

Contrast that scenario with the purpose and mission of Jesus Christ. Humans are so marred by their own selfish sin (often unrealized) that they are on a collision course with ultimate reality on the other side of this physical existence. He doesn’t deviate from His course by striving for political power but rather seeks out the sick, the disadvantaged, the social rejects of 1st century Palestinian society. In the ultimate twist of irony, this God/man is rejected by the very humans He created in eons past and has a date with His destiny — a very cruel death on a cross. He could save Himself easily if He wanted to, but rather “stays with the ship,” sacrificing Himself in order to provide a way of salvation for humans. Such self-sacrificial behavior is embedded in our Christian worldview as being exemplary and worthy of emulation if necessary — hence the “Capt. stays with his ship” precept.

Such martyrdom is the polar opposite of fundamentalist Islamic suicide bombers — killing themselves to kill others rather than save lives. It is moral leagues above even an American soldier falling on a grenade to protect fellow GIs. That self-sacrifice preserves the lives of other highly trained soldiers around them. Jesus was dying to save drunks, prostitutes, criminals — the worst of society along with the rest of humanity.

The attitude of doing all possible, including giving up your own life, to save others is a basic concept taken for granted in our culture which has it’s roots in Christian theology. If our country is indeed leaving a Christian worldview behind in favor of a more naturalistic worldview, I would expect there to be more Capt. Francesco’s in our future than Capt. Sully’s.

◆◆◆

Stephen Rowland is a Columbia resident with a master of arts degree in Biblical Studies who writes on issues from a conservative, Christian viewpoint. E-mail him at mrstephenrowland@aol.com.